Ruling on Einstein's BH's:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They don't Alex. Simply put I know where I am, and I know my limitations and the facts that I often state re forums such as this, and the fact they are open to all and sundry, cranks, quacks, mavericks, crazies etc.
While I take science seriously, I also have a reasonable ability of sorting the wheat from the chaff, and do not take too seriously the remarks of individuals with obvious agendas on this forum.
The vast majority I have crossed swords with, I see as harmless and just part of the Tom, Dick and Harry gang, although there are two who I would dread living next door to due to their obvious unstable nature.
As I often say Alex, no new theory or scientific idea has ever been born on a science forum, and never will be.
But some need to "pretend" and subsequently get their kicks by deriding, devaluing or rubbishing science due to a variety of agendas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tossing false and slanderous accusations around like confetti may be approved of or lightly dismissed by some. Not with me. Answer #37 - coward. Answer it fully and properly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fine that we agree on something.

said the unprofessional, projecting his own dream of ultimate adoration by the majority on me:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you show me where I have said anything different?

 

Not at all....And of course I was making generalised comments on the nature of some people in general, as we all do, including yourself as per your post 29.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but of course also, if the cap fits, wear it.
And also I said the following......

I believe the other one I am referring to was titled along the lines of GR GW's being invalid, but again, I remain too lazy to find it. I'm sure though others remember it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And of course a third anti GR thread that ended up in the fringes a while back, but again please excuse my laziness in not finding it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In essence, while calling the article poor journalism, [which maybe it was in part] I am simply also pointing out your own either poor "journalism" or "sensationalism" re your headlines/title in those threads, and which our Administrator also agreed with, as hypocrisy, particularly since you obviously have a bee in your bonnet re GR and gravitational waves per GR.
And as of this date, those two stand as accepted and have not wavered or changed, despite your crusade to change that.
ps: Calling me a coward as you have done in the past, simply reflects on yourself and your own stability or otherwise, from the anonymity of the web.

 

Yes, most had, as did I.
I did vaguely remember an article though...here it is.
Phys.org) —For years, astronomers have been puzzled by a bizarre object in the center of the Milky Way that was believed to be a hydrogen gas cloud headed toward our galaxy's enormous black hole.

Having studied it during its closest approach to the black hole this summer, UCLA astronomers believe that they have solved the riddle of the object widely known as G2.

A team led by Andrea Ghez, professor of physics and astronomy in the UCLA College, determined that G2 is most likely a pair of binary stars that had been orbiting the black hole in tandem and merged together into an extremely large star, cloaked in gas and dust—its movements choreographed by the black hole's powerful gravitational field. The research is published today in the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Astronomers had figured that if G2 had been a hydrogen cloud, it could have been torn apart by the black hole, and that the resulting celestial fireworks would have dramatically changed the state of the black hole.

"G2 survived and continued happily on its orbit; a simple gas cloud would not have done that," said Ghez, who holds the Lauren B. Leichtman and Arthur E. Levine Chair in Astrophysics. "G2 was basically unaffected by the black hole. There were no fireworks."



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-11-astronomers-puzzle-bizarre-center-galaxy.html#jCp

 

And the paper.........................
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1884v2.pdf

DETECTION OF GALACTIC CENTER SOURCE G2 AT 3.8 MICRONS DURING PERIAPSE PASSAGE

ABSTRACT
We report new observations of the Galactic Center source G2 from the W. M. Keck Observatory. G2 is a dusty red object associated with gas that shows tidal interactions as it nears closest approach with the Galaxy’s central black hole. Our observations, conducted as G2 passed through periapse, were designed to test the proposal that G2 is a 3 earth mass gas cloud. Such a cloud should be tidally disrupted during periapse passage. The data were obtained using the Keck II laser guide star adaptive optics system (LGSAO) and the facility near-infrared camera (NIRC2) through the K’ [2.1 µm] and L’ [3.8 µm] broadband filters. Several results emerge from these observations: 1) G2 has survived its closest approach to the black hole as a compact, unresolved source at L’; 2) G2’s L’ brightness measurements are consistent with those over the last decade; 3) G2’s motion continues to be consistent with a Keplerian model. These results rule out G2 as a pure gas cloud and imply that G2 has a central star. This star has a luminosity of ∼30 L⊙ and is surrounded by a large (∼2.6 AU) optically thick dust shell. The differences between the L’ and Br-γ observations can be understood with a model in which L’ and Br-γ emission arises primarily from internal and external heating, respectively. We suggest that G2 is a binary star merger product and will ultimately appear similar to the B-stars that are tightly clustered around the black hole (the so-called S-star cluster).

 

Thank you for posting.
Alex

 

No, shit stirrer, you were making a specific implied statement. That I, apart from two others this thread, have an 'agenda'. For your information shit stirrer, providing actual arguments, or even merely stating objective opinions, critical of GR or any other theory for that matter, does NOT constitute 'having an agenda'. Or blasphemy. Or high treason. Maybe you need to consult a devil's advocate ex-lawyer devoted buddy of yours on that one. The rest of the puss and drivel dished up in #45 doesn't cut it - as warned in #29.

You accused me of 'having an agenda'. Accusing me thus of having ulterior and/or devious motives. That is a character slur. And you claimed to know what my evil motive(s) - my 'agenda' - is! Make good with it, shit stirrer, or retract unconditionally. There are forum rules regarding character assassination.

 

No probs Alex....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi Q-reeus.
I dont want any part of the irrelevant arguement I see going on here.

I dont think Paddoboy needs to make the accusations he has and my comments to him was my attempt to have him consider that if he wishes to hold that view people will use any opportunity to air their case... push an agenda...
I dont know or care who has or has no agenda and sorry if I gave any impression otherwise.

And to be clear just because I can be someones buddy that does not mean I support their every action.

I dont like Paddoboy having a go at Schmelzer or anyone for that matter but I accept that is his style.
That does not prevent me respecting him nor should it.

I do try and encourage the good in people and avoid negative comment, not always with sucess, and so I encourage Paddoboy to post and bring news to the forum.
And I probably do that to show him there are folk who appreciate his efforts because there are times when he seems to be fighting as the minority... He may well bring it upon himself I need not comment.
I think Paddoboy will tell you that more than once I have hinted I prefer a milder more polite approach and he has countered that he does not choose to follow such a mild approach.

I would call for calm. It is easy to get upset with others particulary if you percieve they are not being respectful but it is just as easy to let many things pass.
And I would like to take this oppertunity to appologise to you for getting unnecessarily excited and being less than nice.
I have thought about it and can only conclude that I temporarily lost my way.
I am not perfect and I appologise for any upset I have caused you in the past.

Alex

 

I wouldn't be concerned Alex....I'll let our peers here be the judge.

Did you read the article and subsequent paper on the G2 supposed gas cloud?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let me add Alex, that we all have an agenda, every damn one of us!........even I!. My agenda though is simply science, particularly cosmology, it's the "hidden agenda/s" that cause the problems........

 

No need. I find your personal judgement in constantly backing paddoboy strange and irritating to put it mildly, but apart from that, there is no issue to apologize for.
This is between me and paddoboy. He will never reform but needs a sharp reminder that foolish and irresponsible accusations won't go unchecked when it involves me.

 

I certainly did.
I read most of what you present although I dont always understand I work on the principle something will stick.
I suppose its a bit nerdy but astronomy cosmology is my main interest.
I spend much of my time in bed reading and I never read fiction... Well made up stories although I am considering another read of the bible, not for enlightenment but for ammunition.. terrible motivation really.
Alex

 

Thank you, it probably has a bit to do with things we have in common country men and these days I spend more time in the same city.
It is probably irritating because you perceive I overlook his flaws I dont but accept his style.
Thanks again.
Alex

 

Strangely I see a commonality in so far as both of you wont let what you may perceive as nonsence pass unchalenged.
Alex

 

Likewise, Alex, likewise.
This in effect is what sticks in some people's craw: That I as an amateur, dare question someone who sees himself as a professional.
If I was wrong in any implication I made, I would withdraw it, but past interactions don't point to that.
Which is why I do get whatever professional opinions from reputable scientists, when I need to, and that in near all occasions, has seen me come out OK....at worst, controversial and debatable, at best correct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I said earlier, we all have an agenda, every damn one of us!........even I!. My agenda though is simply science, particularly cosmology, it's the "hidden agenda/s" that cause the problems........
Now if anyone needs to grab that cap and fit in on, then so be it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Apart from that self-congratulatory BS there, you lie - about your previous lying. Answer my #37 and tell me, tell everyone, just what is MY awful, evil, hidden, 'agenda' implied in your #36. That YOU somehow know all about. Having made the claim, back it up or retract!

 

Sorry, I leave the self congratulatory stuff to you and your ilk.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I don't lie, and have given the link pointing to your obvious anti GR stance and hence agenda, and of course two more, if I can bring myself around to finding them

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll leave it to you now anyway, as you appear excited and we know what that leads to.
Have a good day.